We use necessary cookies to make our website work. We'd also like to use optional analytics cookies to help us improve it.
For more information, please read our cookie policy.

Assessment Summary Sheet

Contributory factor assessment for each assessed Airprox can be downloaded.

Number of Airprox reports assessed, and their ICAO Risk rating
Total Risk A Risk B Risk C Risk D Risk E
12 1 1 7 0 3
Assessed Airprox reports
Airprox Aircraft 1 (Type) Aircraft 2 (Type) Airspace (Class) ICAO Risk
2020016 Wildcat (HQ JHC) Tutor (RN) Yeovilton ATZ (G) E
2020025 Chinook (HQ JHC) AS350 (Civ Helo) London FIR (G) E
2020027 Prefect (HQ Air Trg) C182 (Civ FW) London FIR (G) C
2020030 Saab 340B (CAT) F-15 (Foreign Mil) Scottish FIR (G) E
2020032 Puma (HQ JHC) BN2T (Civ Comm) London FIR (G) C
2020035 Apache(2) (HQ JHC) Apache(1) (HQ JHC) London FIR (G) B
2020038 Apache (HQ JHC) EC145 (HEMS) London FIR (G) C
2020039 DJI Matrice (Civ UAS) C150 (Civ FW) Gamston ATZ (G) C
2020041 QuikR (Civ FW) Untraced Tiger Moth (Civ FW) London FIR (G) C
2020042 FA20 (Civ Comm) Model Aircraft (Unknown) London FIR (G) C
2020044 FA20 (Civ Comm) ASK13 (Civ Gld) London FIR (G) C
2020045 P51D Mustang (Civ FW) QuikR Microlight (Civ FW) London FIR (G) A

 

Consolidated Drone/Balloon/Model/Unknown Object Summary Sheet

Contributory factor assessment for each Drone/Balloon/Model/Unknown Object Airprox can be downloaded.

Number of Drone/Balloon/Model/Unknown Object reports, and their ICAO Risk rating
Total Risk A Risk B Risk C Risk D Risk E
3 0 1 1 0 1
Airprox Number Date

Time (UTC)
Aircraft

(Operator)
Object Location [1]

Description/

Altitude
Airspace

(Class)
Pilot/Controller Report

Reported Separation

Reported Risk
Comments/ Risk Statement ICAO Risk
2020043

28 May 20

1410

FA20

(Civ Com)

Drone

5046N 00154W

2nm W Bournemouth

700ft

Bournemouth CTR

(D)

The FA20 pilot reports that on crew-in ATC were responding to calls of a drone being flown at 2500ft at 2.5nm from the threshold of RW08 at Bournemouth. All airfield departures and recoveries were temporarily ceased and the Police helicopter was launched in order to conduct an inspection. After conducting a search of the area, the helicopter reported that the approach path appeared to be clear. No further drone sightings were reported and normal airfield movements resumed. An uneventful departure was flown.

On recovery a runway inspection was being conducted, which necessitated a join into the circuit to delay the approach. During the finals turn, at approximately 700ft and 2NM, a quadcopter drone was seen passing down the right-hand side of the aircraft at approximately 200ft laterally and 300ft vertically above. This was immediately reported to ATC who passed the information to company traffic. The aircraft was recovered without further incident.

 

Reported Separation: 300ft V/ 70m H

Reported Risk of Collision: High

 

The Bournemouth Radar Controller reports that at 1410Z they were advised by the Tower controller that the FA20 pilot had reported a drone at 2.5nm final for RW08 at approximately 1500ft. The FA20 had completed the first approach without incident and was completing a visual circuit to land at the time of the drone encounter. This was the second drone incident of the day in the same location with the first being by a Shadow at around 1200Z [Airprox 2020046].

In the Board’s opinion the reported altitude and/or description of the object were sufficient to indicate that it could have been a drone.

 

Applicable Contributory Factors: 1, 2, 3, 4, 7

 

Risk: The Board considered that the pilot’s overall account of the incident portrayed a situation where although safety had been reduced, there had been no risk of collision.

C
2020046

28 May 20

1207

Shadow

(HQ Air Ops)

Drone

N5046 W00155

Bournemouth

800ft

Bournemouth CTR

(D)

The Shadow pilot reports that, while on the procedural ILS approach into Bournemouth for RW08, a drone was observed by the PNF. The drone passed 100ft below the aircraft and was identified as a medium-sized (2ft diameter), white,

quadcopter similar to a DJI Phantom. The crew elected to go around and, whilst in the hold, managed to acquire the drone briefly using an onboard camera. This information was passed to ATC and local police forces. After 30 minutes the crew had no further sightings and ATC allowed the crew to complete an approach to land. There were no further sightings of the drone.

 

Reported Separation: 100ft V/0m H

Reported Risk of Collision: Very High

 

The Bournemouth investigation reports that this was one of two drone encounters on the same day in the same area [cross-refer Airprox 2020043]. Specialist equipment on board the aircraft reporting the encounter was able to identify the type of drone as a Phantom Quadcopter. Initial investigations have discovered that this type of drone is provided with a Geo Zone map offering guidance to users on safe areas to fly, restriction zones and prohibited areas. This map has been found to be inaccurate with regards to restriction areas in the vicinity of the airport. Contact has been made with the company in a bid to rectify this situation and to assist in prohibiting such drones from lifting within the notified FRZ in the future.

In the Board’s opinion the reported altitude and/or description of the object were sufficient to indicate that it could have been a drone.

 

Applicable Contributory Factors: 1, 2, 3, 4, 6

 

Risk: The Board considered that the pilot’s overall account of the incident portrayed a situation where safety had been much reduced below the norm to the extent that safety had not been assured.

B
2020049

31 May 20

1958

EC145

(PSNI)

Unk obj

N5500 W00720

Londonderry

1700ft

Scottish FIR

(G)

The EC145 pilot reports that he was flying in an orbit on a tasking when a fast-moving drone was spotted 300-500ft below the aircraft and within 500m. The drone remained in the vicinity of the helicopter for 5-10min and the pilot then lost sight of it.

 

Reported Separation: 300-500ft V/500m H

Reported Risk of Collision: NR

 

The Belfast/Aldergrove ATC Watch Manager reports that the pilot did not report the event to Aldergrove ATC, either on the RT at the time of the event, or later by telephone. No tracks were observed on the radar at the time and place of the reported Airprox.

In the Board’s opinion the reported altitude and/or description of the object were such that they were unable to determine the nature of the unknown object.

 

Applicable Contributory Factors: 4, 8

 

Risk: The Board considered that the pilot’s overall account of the incident portrayed a situation where normal procedures and/or safety standards had applied.

E

[1] Latitude and Longitude are usually only estimates that are based on the reported time of occurrence mapped against any available radar data for the aircraft’s position at that time. Because such reported times may be inaccurate, the associated latitudes and longitudes should therefore not be relied upon as precise locations of the event.

Latest from UK Airprox Board

  1. March reports are now available
  2. Airprox Digest 2021 - Winter Edition

View all latest news